I think that children from a second grade school would understated this experiment but you don't...
And you twisting again... The magnetic strip is 1m long and coil glides on plastic sledge until it hits the plastic stop bumper and then we get EMF due to acceleration as seen on the scope but you missed that too... :-)
One warning: personal insults get posts deleted on this site, I shouldn't even be replying to you, as my post will just be deleted too if a mod comes by.
Anyway, you failed to label anything in your photos. The track just looks like a metal sheet. The block that was next to the coil seemed like the most magnet looking thing to me. Anyway with the magnet being that sheet on the track, you simply need to see point #1 from my previous post. The effects from opposite ends of the loop cancel out. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
Also, it is logically impossible for any experiment to validate your so-called "Orman force law" because your units are inconsistent.
The units are: Force in Newtons, flax in Tesla, Charge in Coulombs, Velocity in m/sec and time in sec... :-) Matlab simulation included... :-)
Here is a post where you atttached your paper.
You have 2 different equations. I am replacing the deltas with d's since that makes the notation more meaningful anyway:
F = q*(dv/dt)*B, which is wrong because the right side of the equation has units of force per time, while the left side has units of force.
F = q*dB/dt has units of force times distance on the right side.
Neither equation is consistent, and there isn't even a made up unit to replace proper units for magnetic field that could make both equations work at the same time.
Also, you failed to attach a Matlab simulation.
OK, I give up, you got math mixed with physics... Right side has unit of charge unit of flux intensity and units of time, but you see units of force... :-) Anyway it is all irrelevant since you have no idea how to interpret simple experiment... I advice you to consult experience electronics engineer... :-) Also you seem to forget that I have previously posted links to all the papers and Matlab files:
Wow, only in this forum are people so aggressively defensive that they come across as straight up mean... which is a better sounding way of saying "patronizing ass". I think people like Orman genuinely believe they're this rare once-in-a-century genius and that anyone opposing them must just be wrong on principle because they're opposing a once-in-a-century genius.
I find it dubious and possibly a little narcissistic that you've discovered something that radical, yet all you've done with the knowledge is post it on an internet forum so everyone can see how correct you are, instead of using it to actually help people or advance the state of space travel.
Personally I think this forum should be closed, but it's here so people like Orman and Lin can bounce their ideas off of people who actually know WTF they are talking about. If you aren't going to use it for that, find some other site to be mean to people trying to help you.
Wow, only in this forum are people so aggressively defensive that they cross into being just plain old mean. I think people like Orman genuinely believe they're this rare once-in-a-century genius and that anyone opposing them must just be wrong on principle because they're opposing a once-in-a-century genius.
I find it dubious and possibly a little narcissistic that you've discovered something that radical, yet all you've done with the knowledge is post it on an internet forum so everyone can see how correct you are, instead of using it to actually help people or advance the state of space travel.
Personally I think this forum should be closed, but it's here so people like Orman and Lin can bounce their ideas off of people who actually know WTF they are talking about. If you aren't going to use it for that, find some other site to be mean to people trying to help you.
So, by your rules someone who posts an experiment which is simple and easy to reproduce with little or no cost is an intruder to this forum with some undetermined intentions other than the sake of and experimental prove... Why not show your expertise in experimenting and show what is wrong with my experiment, please... :-)
The point of my post was that you need to stop being a dick to people. No one has to take a second of their life to do anything for you or your idea.
The point of my post was that you need to stop being a dick to people. No one has to take a second of their life to do anything for you or your idea.
But my point is that one cannot patent a propellant-less force drive which is based on new physics because physics laws are not patent-able thus I must first publish Orman Force Law to become a public knowledge and then invent the drive and patent it... Unfortunately there is a danger of someone else inventing a drive based on disclosed new laws in physics... Still, disappointing that you are not willing to spend a second to show your expertise... :-)
The point of my post was that you need to stop being a dick to people. No one has to take a second of their life to do anything for you or your idea.
But my point is that one cannot patent a propellant-less force drive which is based on new physics because physics laws are not patent-able thus I must first publish Orman Force Law to become a public knowledge and then invent the drive and patent it... Unfortunately there is a danger of someone else inventing a drive based on disclosed new laws in physics... Still, disappointing that you are not willing to spend a second to show your expertise... :-)
Members was ask not to reply to my posts, yet he still does...
OK, I give up, you got math mixed with physics...
Math and physics have always been related.
Right side has unit of charge unit of flux intensity and units of time, but you see units of force... :-)
Magnetic field has SI units of Tesla. A
Tesla is a derived unit equal to kg/ (A*s^2) in base units, or N*s/(C*m) in units that are convenient when looking at your equations. The left side of both of your equations is force. If the right side does not also equal force when you multiply it out, it means your equations are inconsistent.
Anyway it is all irrelevant since you have no idea how to interpret simple experiment... I advice you to consult experience electronics engineer...
You need to go take your own advice, or you could just listen to me, because I actually know what I am talking about on this subject. Ignoring the fact that standard physics predicts exactly what you found does you no favors.
Also you seem to forget that I have previously posted links to all the papers and Matlab files:
That is a link to a youtube video of a pdf, which is extremely unhelpful. Clicking though it looks like you added a link under the video, with a link to a Matlab script that combines random numbers while completely ignoring the nonsensical units. Matlab will operate on whatever numbers you give it, but it follows the rule of garbage in, garbage out, and your script has contradictory equations. For example, acceleration times magnetic field divided by mass is not equal to acceleration.
edit: had the wrong case on "A" for Ampere.
The point of my post was that you need to stop being a dick to people. No one has to take a second of their life to do anything for you or your idea.
But my point is that one cannot patent a propellant-less force drive which is based on new physics because physics laws are not patent-able thus I must first publish Orman Force Law to become a public knowledge and then invent the drive and patent it... Unfortunately there is a danger of someone else inventing a drive based on disclosed new laws in physics... Still, disappointing that you are not willing to spend a second to show your expertise... :-)
The USPTO apparently believes one can as there are more propellent-less propulsion patents than I am capable of reading. Of course being patented doesn't prove a device works.
The point of my post was that you need to stop being a dick to people. No one has to take a second of their life to do anything for you or your idea.
But my point is that one cannot patent a propellant-less force drive which is based on new physics because physics laws are not patent-able thus I must first publish Orman Force Law to become a public knowledge and then invent the drive and patent it... Unfortunately there is a danger of someone else inventing a drive based on disclosed new laws in physics... Still, disappointing that you are not willing to spend a second to show your expertise... :-)
The USPTO apparently believes one can as there are more propellent-less propulsion patents than I am capable of reading. Of course being patented doesn't prove a device works.
Yes, but that is 100 year old news... :-) And patent office will not issue a patent which is based on new physics regardless if the device works or doesn't... :-)
The point of my post was that you need to stop being a dick to people. No one has to take a second of their life to do anything for you or your idea.
But my point is that one cannot patent a propellant-less force drive which is based on new physics because physics laws are not patent-able thus I must first publish Orman Force Law to become a public knowledge and then invent the drive and patent it... Unfortunately there is a danger of someone else inventing a drive based on disclosed new laws in physics... Still, disappointing that you are not willing to spend a second to show your expertise... :-)
The USPTO apparently believes one can as there are more propellent-less propulsion patents than I am capable of reading. Of course being patented doesn't prove a device works.
Yes, but that is 100 year old news... :-) And patent office will not issue a patent which is based on new physics regardless if the device works or doesn't... :-)
There is no legal vs. illegal physics. Patents based on "new" physics are granted all the time. There just has to be some reasonable claim the physics is real such as scientific publications. In the case of propellent-less propulsion patents, I believe they allow them because technically, they work even if they prove to only provide minuscule forces such as photon pressure in most cases.
The point of my post was that you need to stop being a dick to people. No one has to take a second of their life to do anything for you or your idea.
But my point is that one cannot patent a propellant-less force drive which is based on new physics because physics laws are not patent-able thus I must first publish Orman Force Law to become a public knowledge and then invent the drive and patent it... Unfortunately there is a danger of someone else inventing a drive based on disclosed new laws in physics... Still, disappointing that you are not willing to spend a second to show your expertise... :-)
The USPTO apparently believes one can as there are more propellent-less propulsion patents than I am capable of reading. Of course being patented doesn't prove a device works.
Yes, but that is 100 year old news... :-) And patent office will not issue a patent which is based on new physics regardless if the device works or doesn't... :-)
There is no legal vs. illegal physics. Patents based on "new" physics are granted all the time. There just has to be some reasonable claim the physics is real such as scientific publications. In the case of propellent-less propulsion patents, I believe they allow them because technically, they work even if they prove to only provide minuscule forces such as photon pressure in most cases.
That is what I have said: Publish new physics first then patent a device based on previously published new physics... :-)